8GB RAM - Win7 x86 vs x64?

[c627627]

The other way of looking at it is this. I remember when AMD 64 first came out and the sell was that it was 64-Bit OS capable and people bought it for the reason that not buying a 64-Bit capable CPU

on a new machine is doing oneself a significant disservice.

Now if they went through several machine changes before Windows 7 64-Bit ever came out, they would have been better off asking if that CPU was better for what they were using at the time.


At that time, some non 64-Bit Athlon XP CPUs were clocking sky high and they would do everything faster for the life of the machine vs. the 64-Bit CPU unless the overclock could match to outperform the non-64Bit capable Athlon XP CPU.

 

[hafa]

Not quite sure I understand the relevance, c627627, as is seems to me a matter of "that was then, this is now"...

 

[rollincoaster]

I'd do 64 bit with that much ram. It'd seem like a waste not to.

 

[c627627]

The relevance is that what is 64-Bit for? The extra RAM and only extra RAM. Which program do I use that can take frequent advantage of more than 4GB of RAM. I cannot think of a single one.


So, for others putting machines to sleep? Definitely more than 4 GB of RAM. Professional graphics machines or folding? Definitely more than 4 GB of RAM. But if you don't do any of that, like I don't, is it not too early for 64-Bit? Windows 7 will be replaced by Windows 8 by the time more than 4GB of RAM is needed is the point.


Just like most people using Windows 7 64-Bit today are not using it on the first AMD64 CPUs but on more recent hardware, I'll be using a different machine and a different OS by the time I need it and can really use it. The analogy for me is the same.


Why buy the first AMD64 CPU? Because it was faster than Athlon XP? Yes, but not all were faster than the best Athlon XP overclockers. So the only other reason to buy them was 64-Bit OS... but Windows 7 64-bit, the first real Windows 64-Bit OS with widespread use was so far in the future that those first AMD64 CPUs were replaced possibly several times over before Windows 7 64-Bit came out. So likewise - I just don't see what I could do with 64-Bit today and in return I would have to give up compatibility with older programs and hardware and I know for a fact many of my frequently used programs do not work under Windows 7 64-Bit.

 

[TempliNocturnus]

If you are referring to PAE, it has to be enabled in the kernel. Mint/Ubuntu do not have this enabled by default. Never seen it work reliably on Windows.

Enterprise or higher editions of x86 Windows server OS's have been able to use more than 4 GB of RAM since at least Server 2000:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...hysical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003_sp2

IMO, x86 OS's are soon to be deprecated. Enterprise IT is quickly making the transition to x64 Windows 7 clients and most OEMs are using x64 OSs on their above-basic systems. Likewise, I fail to see the purpose of an x86 OS on anything but the most basic, bar-minimum configurations.

 

[c627627]

If it is true that next year Windows 8 will only be available in 64-Bit, then that goes a long way to paving the way for the end of 32-Bit.


The purpose using of x86 today is compatibility with older hardware and software. There is no other reason. Why give those up in home environments if most programs you use in that home environment do not need or use >4GB of RAM.

For older and/or less experienced computer users, why would they give up older hardware or software in any foreseeable future? The gain of them spending so much money to replace it all in these difficult economic times is unacceptable to them because there would be no gain because none of their programs need or use more than 4GB of RAM. But if Windows 8 only comes in 64-Bit - they will have to replace their older hardware or software. When they ask why, what do we say? Because you need more RAM? For what?

 

[hafa]

Even though the average home user today won't necessarily take advantage of >4GB, they may very well likely need it 2 years down the road (Think about how much RAM you used 2 years ago VS today). If you have a 64-bit OS, it's just a matter of popping in some cheap DIMS and you're good to go. If, however, you have a 32-bit OS, you're S.O.L..

Also, in our experience supplying machines to over 400 home and office users on a regular basis, when folks buy a new machine, they usually ditch older software and peripherals, as it's an opportunity to upgrade. The need to continue to support legacy hardware/software becomes a moot point at that stage. By purchasing OEM copies, they spend less than upgrading software, more efficient printers mean lower ink costs, etc...

 

[TempliNocturnus]

Most older hardware lacking x64 drivers are not compatible with Windows versions beyond XP. So architecture seems not to be the determining factor in regards to hardware; if a hardware vendor bothered to write Vista/7 drivers, the probably also wrote x64 drivers.

Windows on Windows (WoW64) allows the use of 32-bit programs on x64 systems. I have personally never seen a 32-bit app fail to run on a x64 host, due to the host being x64 (the failures can normally be attributed to the host being Vista or Win7 and not the architecture).

Lastly, many systems in use today do not need any additional hardware upgrades to use a x64 OS. The cost and end-user experience of OS of both architectures are pretty much the same. At least in mainstream computing (when I say mainstream, I'm referring to those who drive the industry: IT professionals and enthusiasts), the x86 architecture is pretty much at an end.

 

[Mehovoric]

Windows on Windows (WoW64) allows the use of 32-bit programs on x64 systems. I have personally never seen a 32-bit app fail to run on a x64 host, due to the host being x64

I second that. The company I used to work for used x64 everything. But a lot of the software we used was x86. Never had a failure. The only time I could get anything to run was a Star Wars game from like 1993 or 1995 or something. haha.

Who's ready for 128-bit processors?!

 

[c627627]

I'm trying to remember which programs I tried to get working in 64-Bit Windows but could not.


Here's one. I know people have empty desktops so they can look at pretty desktop pictures but I use my Desktop as a link depository to start my most frequently used programs quickly.

I like to keep some shortcuts exactly where I like to keep them on the big screen, not alphabetized or lined up or anything like that. So I
Right click > Save Desktop
then
Right click > Restore Desktop
any time after that.



Here is freeware that does that on 32-Bit Windows but as I recall, doesn't work on 64-Bit Windows. There were more programs as I recall but if anyone gets this one to work under 64-Bit or finds an equivalent that does the same under 64-Bit, then I guess I would be wrong about Windows 64-bit compatibility:

 

[deathman20]

Though C627627 with 64-bit system it might not be the usage of 4Gigs of ram per application, but I can have open multiple applications that could use more than 4Gigs overall in system memory. So its highly relevant.

Heck even 32-bit system with 4Gigs of ram, and say a GPU with 1Gig of ram, you are looking at only 2.7Gig usable. That becomes a major issue. At least with XP, not sure if Vista or Win7 handles it differently.

 

[c627627]

Yes I think you are right. Multiple high RAM usage apps can tear through RAM quick.

I think that is the main argument in favor of the 64-Bit OS moreso than any individual app usage. I will try holding out till Windows 8 then it will be a multi boot with Win8 64 - Win7 32 - WinXP for me.